JUDGMENT K. C. Agrawal, J:- This writ petition in directed against an order of the Additional District Judge dated 21-4-1977 allowing a revision filed under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 by respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Premises No, 326 Kutechery Road Etah, belonged to respondents No. 2 and 3. It was in the tenancy of a Judicial Officer. After the transfer of the said Judicial Officer an application was made by M /s Sherwani Sugar Syndicate limited (hereinafter referred as the 'Sugar Company') for allotment of the premises to it, on September 22, 197). The relevant portion of the application is extracted below : "Since Neoli Sugar Factory Neoli, has to do lot of work in Etah and we have to stay there for our business purposes and we have to always got into contacts with the District administration at Etah, including the supply and dispatch of sugar and other subjects, we need a house in Etah badly on permanent basis............ Yours faithfully per Pro Sherwani Sugar Synd. Pvt. Ltd. Neoli Sugar Factory, Sd. B, R. Dubey Opposite Parties General Manager. Apart from the aforesaid application, an application in the prescribed form was also given to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. As against the name of the applicant, the following entry was made : "General Manager, Neoli Sugar Factory, P.O. Neoli Etah, For M/s Sherwani Sugar Syndicate Ltd. Neoli." 3. As the Sugar Company was the sole applicant for allotment, the premises was allotted to it on 6-10-1975. In pursuance of the said allotment order, the possession was obtained by the Sugar Company and information with respect to the same was sent to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the letter dated 1.8.1975 (Annexure 4' to the writ petition) It, however, appears that the allotment order was issued in the name of B. R. Dubey, General Manager, Neoli, Sugar Factory, Neoli, Etah. After sometime, the Sugar Company filed an application for correcting the description of the allottee in the allotment order. Though this application it was pointed out to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the applicant for the allotment was the Sugar Company but due to inadvertence the allotment order was made in favour of B. R. Dubey. After sometime, the Sugar Company filed an application for correcting the description of the allottee in the allotment order. Though this application it was pointed out to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the applicant for the allotment was the Sugar Company but due to inadvertence the allotment order was made in favour of B. R. Dubey. The application for allotment was made by the Sugar Company for occupation by itself and not by B R. Dubey in his personal and individual capacity. The said application was moved on 31-5-1976 and was allowed on 21-6-1976. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed that the said allotment order should be read as one for the allotment of the premises to the Sugar Company instead of B R. Dubey. 4. Respondents No 2 and 3, thereafter, filed an application for revising the order dated 31-6-1976 on the ground that is the allotment order had been passed in favour of B R Dubey, the same could not be corrected. The application was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 5-10-1976. Against the said order, respondents No. 2 and 3 preferred a revision before the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. The revision was allowed by the impugned order. Hence, the Sugar Company has filed the present writ. 5. Sri S. S. Bhatnagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as an order correcting a mistake was not revisable under Section 18 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, the revision filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 was not maintainable, and, therefore, the order passed by the Additional District Judge was without jurisdiction. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was countered by the learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. According to him, the order dated 21-6-1976 was an order making a fresh order of allotment in favour of Neoli Factory, and, as such, was revisable under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 6. The above argument leads to consider whether the order dated 21-6-1976 was an order of allotment or was only correcting the misdescription or the mistake in the previous order of allotment dated 6-10-1976. It is admitted case of the parties that the application for allotment was filed by the Sugar Company. 6. The above argument leads to consider whether the order dated 21-6-1976 was an order of allotment or was only correcting the misdescription or the mistake in the previous order of allotment dated 6-10-1976. It is admitted case of the parties that the application for allotment was filed by the Sugar Company. B R. Dubey was not the applicant for allotment He had signed the said application in the capacity of General Manager of the Sugar Company. As B. R. Dubey was not the applicant for allotment and did not want to occupy the premises for himself and his family members. The allotment order could not be made in his name. It would be seen from a review of the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 and the Rules framed there under that an order cannot be passed suo moto by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in favour of a person not an applicant for allotment. An order can be made only on an application made by a person. In the instant case, as B. R. Dubey was not an applicant for allotment the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, could not allot the premises to him under the law. In fact, the order of allotment was intended to be passed in favour of the Sugar Company, but due to inadvertent mistake the same was passed in favour of B. R Dubey, General Manager As the mistake was one of description and could be characterised as a clerical one, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had power to make the correction in the allotment order. 7. I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, No. 2 and 3 that the correction made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer amounted to passing of a fresh allotment order. This was not an order by which the premises was allotted to a person or to a Company which became an applicant for the first time by moving an application for correction. As observed above, the applicant for allotment was the Sugar Company, and the allotment order being for the said Sugar Company, the correction in the allotment order was within the jurisdiction of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. That being so, the order was not revisable by the Additional District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. 8. As observed above, the applicant for allotment was the Sugar Company, and the allotment order being for the said Sugar Company, the correction in the allotment order was within the jurisdiction of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. That being so, the order was not revisable by the Additional District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned Additional District Judge is quashed, and that of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 21-6-1976 is maintained. No order as to costs.